Thursday, December 4, 2008

Ex-employees are not covered by the ADA for handling of post-employment benefits

In McKnight v. General Motors (6th Cir. 12/4/08), the 6th Circuit was presented with the question of whether disabled former employees have standing under the ADA to bring suit against their former employers for discrimination with respect to the payment of post-employment fringe benefits. At issue in the case was whether GM’s pension plans give equal access to disabled and non-disabled employees.

Title I says that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual.” A “qualified individual” is someone who “can perform.” That definition uses the present tense. Thus, one must be able to perform the essential functions of employment at the time that one is discriminated against in order to bring suit under Title I. In addition, one must be discriminated against “because of the disability”—which requires that the disability exist at the time of the discrimination and be the motivation for the discrimination.

Thus, the Court concluded “that disabled former employees are not ‘qualified individuals’ with a disability under Title I of the ADA.”

This decision, while significant, has limited applicability to most employers. For example, one should not interpret this decision to mean that no ex-employee has standing to sue under the ADA. To the contrary, an employee who could perform the essential functions of the job at the time of the challenged decision still has standing to sue. This decision has no impact on the run of the mill ADA plaintiff who claims a denial of a reasonable accommodation or a termination from employment because of a disability. This decision only impacts those decisions that affect an individual after an individual ceases employment – pension and benefit decisions, for example.

Disclaimer

This blog is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Online readers should not act upon any information presented on this blog without seeking professional legal counsel. The legal information provided in this blog is general and should not be relied on as legal advice, which I cannot provide without full consideration of all relevant information relating to one's individual situation.

The author apologizes for any factual or other errors in this blog. If you believe that some content is inaccurate, false, disparaging, slanderous, libelous, or defamatory, please post a comment or contact me; I will consider editing existing content, removing that content, or posting a retraction. Information herein is provided on an "as is" or "as available" basis; we make no warranty of any kind to you regarding the information provided and disclaim any liability for damages from use of the blog or its content.